Duke MelTdoWn

Actually this seems to work great. By now any pretenses about giving a f*** about part clipping are out of the window anyways. I will refine this design and get back to you I used alligator hinges in this 100 meter drop test. Make sure to disengage the motor and lock them before landing, or you will bounce like crazy. ___ In the meantime, here is the pure stock model. MoEM IX benefits from the findings of my test flight to Moho with MoEM VIII. It now seats three and has multiple other minor improvements. Art seduces, but does not exploit 'Skyfly XI' cargo SSTO can lift ~ 28 tons payload inside Mk2 bays to Kerbin orbit. 'Nuclear Interim Propulsion Stage' NIPS can transfer a ~12 ton lander from Kerbin to anywhere in the Kerbol system. 'Moho Excursion Module IX' MoEM is a compact lander with built in ISRU that works on most bodies except Eve, Tylo and Laythe. Skyfly XI + MoEM IX Total launch mass: 91.2 tons Total system price: 143,682 Delta-V: ~340m/s left in Skyfly in 100x100 km Kerbin orbit; 4300 m/s in NIPS for Moho Transfer; ~1450 m/s left in MoEM on arrival in 10x10 km Moho orbit I followed this guide to get a low energy transfer: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/The_annual_and_reliable_Moho_Transfer_Opportunity Steam Workshop: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3036242416 Protocol of MoEM VIII Moho expedition:

I like to use names from mythology. E.g. Greek https://www.greeklegendsandmyths.com/a---atoz-greek-mythology.html Norse https://issuu.com/bloomsburypublishing/docs/glossary_extract/9 If you go for a Soviet feel maybe use Slavic names? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Slavic_deities If you look at real Soviet names they would probably have named it 'Minmus 1' or 'Minera 1' (analogues to Luna 1, Venera 1, Mars 1 etc).

@miklkit Thanks for the inspiration, I regard your quote as true even if Mk2 Moho Landers are possible - maybe the range problem can be solved by liberal part overlap, but the carrying capacity limits them to such a small footprint that they like to topple over.

Looks great! How did you implement the swing wings? I want to try swing wings on my next cargo SSTO to compensate for the shifting center of mass between takeoff and reentry.

If I ever run for office, can I retain you as Spin Doctor Hotel26?

I like the robotics parts, they enable completely new designs, but I guess you could use also use mods for this? Also, most basic functions for the actuators don't need a KAL-1000 program. You can just toggle between extended/retracted with an action group. You only need a program if multiple actuators need to run a timed sequence of actions. I like to share my designs on the workshop, so stuff built with stock + DLC might be more accessible than mods. My helicopters got not very far, but I made good use of the hinges and actuators. Here are some examples:

Congratulations on your discovery! Looks really cool. So a 324 ton "asteroid" hidden somewhere in the Kerbol system? Talk about a needle in the haystack

This prompted me to try to get a MK2 lander to Moho. The resulting flight of Skyfly XI and Moho Excursion Module VIII was successful. I wrote an essay on this trip and my thoughts on Mk2 landers, with lots of pictures. Please reply if you have cool Mk2 payloads! And I did NOT use an Orion Nuclear Pulse Engine, I swear!

This comment prompted me to revisit my designs for a Mk2 Moho Lander and do a full test flight. The (mediocre) results can be found below. Do you have a nifty Mk2 payload? Please reply below! ____ Skyfly XI + MoEM IX (Steam Workshop) The test flight of Skyfly XI + Moho Excursion Module VIII completed its objective to land on Moho, refuel with ISRU, and return to Moho orbit with enough fuel to land again. So the trip and biome hopping is doable, but landing and mining is a pain. And the route back to Kerbin by refueling NIPS in orbit is only a dim hope to keep morale up. Mk2 Advantages: - Moho mission with biome hopping possible. - Low launch mass and price. Full system price of Skyfly XI + MoEM VIII is only ~150,000; total launch mass 92 tons. - High recovery value. Only some small LF tanks are jettisoned during the whole mission. - Style bonus for using plane as first stage. Mk2 Disadvantages: - Mk2 form factor sucks -- Lander/Miner tends to get tall, skinny and top heavy, compounded by the small footprint of the landing legs. This makes it topple over easily. -- Can only fit a Convert-O-Tron 125, so refueling the Miner takes long (3 days with 5* engineer). -- Can not fit a lot of Kerbals on the Miner. -- No Lab possible. - Way back to Kerbin questionable. -- Miner can not transport a lot of excess LF to refuel NIPS (interplanetary transfer stage) in orbit. Many trips would be required. -- Landing on Moho with NIPS attached is impossible. - Part clipping can get borderline abusive. -- Staging of the NIPS tanks is very sketchy. Produces a lot of debris. -- Reactionless headbutt drive fixed in MoEM IX. - I was not able to make a Mk2 cargo spaceplane where the CoM does not shift massively between takeoff and reentry. -- CoL of Skyfly XI is tuned for takeoff; it needs to reenter retrograde tail first or it will go into a flat spin. Possible Improvements Some incremental improvements are made in MoEM IX. I managed to squeeze in two additional external seats. MoEM IX also has dedicated LF tanks to refuel NIPS. This lowers the available delta-v of the Miner to 2034 m/s (with full crew/cargo) which should be enough. But refueling NIPS would still take about 12 trips. And if you make an inefficient rendezvous you are stuck in orbit because the margins are low. So I will focus on flying the Compact Exploration System next. It should eliminate the main drawbacks like the wobbly Miner and missing lab thanks to the Mk3 form factor. I am also finalizing a new version of Valykrie Shuttle to maybe get Bobfel back. It is only sandbox, but still ... Moho Expedition Protocol I followed this guide to make a low energy transfer to Moho: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/The_annual_and_reliable_Moho_Transfer_Opportunity Total transfer costs from 100x100 km Kerbin to 11x11 km Moho orbit: 4413 m/s (planned maneuvers)

Agreed. I played around with packaging small landers and miners into Mk2 cargo bays some time ago. It is possible but there are drawbacks. The landers get tall and skinny and therefore tend to topple over. You can only fit a small ISRU so refueling takes a long time. And you should not be a "Allow part clipping in editors = off" purist. Steam: Skyfly VIII + Duna Lander, Skyfly IX + DEM VIII Steam: MoEM VI + NIPS E, Skyfly X + Moho Excursion Module VII MEM VII is the best version of Mk2 miners I have built. But the expendable Skyfly X SSTO concept is questionable. The Nuclear Interim Propulsion Stage is probably better because you can use a less draggy SSTO to get into Kerbin orbit. _____ So I went down the Mk2 rabbit hole again, thanks for the inspiration. A full report on the exploits of Skyfly XI and Moho Excursion Module VIII will follow tomorrow. Here is a teaser - if you are allergic to part clipping you might want to skip this one

Yes, nice integration of the biplane with the engines. This looks much more like a plane and less than a sea turtle than my last attempt with MK3 parts I added an Extended Range version of Skidbladner that has a little bit more fuel. This is to make sure you can get to Minmus and back even if fully loaded with 8 passengers and cargo (about 1620 m/s left in 100x100 km LKO). https://kerbalx.com/Meltdown/Skidbladner-ER-Short-Range-Shuttle https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3031886826 'Minimalist SSTO I' is now also on KerbalX if you like the low-tech stuff. https://kerbalx.com/Meltdown/Minimalist-SSTO-I ___________ I completed the Mk1 SSTO study. The nice thing about this is the low frontal area, which means low drag and good acceleration. But I would not try to land it on water. "Ceci n'est pas une cigare." 'Falhofnir' Cheap Shuttle 1x Rapier Delta-v: ~ 1700 m/s left in 100x100 km Kerbin orbit (with crew and cargo) TWR: ~1.40 in low Kerbin orbit Launch Mass: 18.2 tons Price: 28,815 Crew capacity: 4 I lost an air brake during the test flight, but was able to recover by transferring fuel to the nose. So I am pretty happy with the handling. Steam Workshop: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3031915463

Sorry, these are not only partially on KerbalX because I built them some months ago. MiSTO I: 183 science required; 17.998 tons; about 100 m/s left in LKO https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2968514518 https://kerbalx.com/Meltdown/Minimalist-SSTO-I Tipp: you want to reenter belly up so the landing gear does not melt. MiSTO II: 198 science required; 17.415 tons; just enough delta-v to get to orbit; now with science experiments! https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2970030289 MiSTO III: 243 science + runway upgrade required; 25.640 tons; about 650 m/s left in LKO https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2970140620

You should be fine. I also always place the RCS blocks into the airstream and am not aware of any good alternatives. I started out building a small fighter, but the project degenerated into another spaceplane. Now it is basically a cheaper, lighter version of Sleipnir with less frontal area. Performance on the way to space is not bad, I did not try the reentry characteristics yet. Development steps:

You can put the ladders inside a cargo bay. As long as only a little bit sticks out (just enough to grab them), they will not cause any drag (is it a bug or is it a feature, who knows). As for flight path - I also like to start out really flat after liftoff (pointed at horizon, 0 m/s climb rate) and then stop fiddling with the controls. Due to the curvature of Kerbin, the horizon will drop away from your prograde vector naturally. Two reasons come to my mind why it is good to start flat: 1) Thrust curve of jet engines - they like high air density and air speed for max thrust. By keeping it flat, you give them time to spool up to maximum thrust. 2) Angle of attack affects drag - ideally you would want 0° angle of attack to minimize drag. This is another reason to angle the wings upwards by 2° to 5° - they will still generate good lift while the body of the plane is pointed directly into the airstream. AoA is shown in Aero debug menu. Demonstration with a Skidbladner SSTO - engage Closed Cycle at 23 km and ~1580 m/s when you stop accelerating: On the prototype front - I will try to fit a miniature rover to the CoExSyst, will take more time until I publish the production version. Edit: it does not go well, I don't have enough space for a decent wheelbase.

How fast are you going on the jet engines before you switch to rocket motor? As I said earlier, it is possible to fly to space on 2 Wheesleys and a Swivel. But you need to make sure your plane does not create any unnecessary drag (e.g. put solar panels, parachutes, antennas, science experiments all inside a service bay). I did some experiments on the drag of the different intake types a while ago and the result was that Ramp Intake sucks because it creates huge amounts of drag. Definitely stick to those Shock Cones! Air Intake Drag Data Edit: to emphasize how import low drag is for good performance, compare these two small SSTOs: DART I this uses 4x LT-1 Landing Struts. Takes 1:30 to reach 650 m/s DART I Block 7 this uses 4x LY-10 Small Landing Gear (ignore the heat shield shenanigans for the moment). Reaches 650 m/s after 1 minute. Performance increase is due to drag reduction. Conclusion: ALT-F12 > Physics > Aero is your friend.

I continued fiddling with the CoExSyst. The trick to shoot the exhaust of the 'Chione' Ferry through the 'Copreus' Transfer Stage works. I also verified that you can change from interplanetary cruise mode ('Chione' docked to 'Copreus') to landing mode ('Chione' docked to 'Chrysaer' Miner). Sat Recovery also works, but was kind of a pain. But I was not happy with all the empty space in the Sat Carrier section. So for the next iteration I ditched the Surveyor Sat and added 1500 LF to the 'Calliope' Lab instead. I also redesigned the Relays to be even more compact and easier to dock. CoExSyst FA: 60 tons; 4551 m/s; TWR 0.31; 3x Relay, 2x Data Carrier, 1x Survey; (813 m/s left in Guppy at 100x100 km) CoExSyst JA: 68.1 tons; 5577 m/s; TWR 0.27; 4x Relay, 2x Data Carrier Which config do you think is more useful?

CoExSyst (Compact Exploration System) prototype makes good progress. The cargo bay of the Super Guppy III is now FULL Validation landing of the Ferry and Miner modules on the Mun was successful, the Nerva actually creates thrust instead of just heating the Miner stage below. The additional TWR from the 4 Sparks on the Miner came in handy during critical maneuvers. Currently waiting for refueling to finish - which will take some time. Lab/Sat Carrier and Transfer Stage modules are ready for a test flight. It was quite fiddly to squeeze all those satellites in. Three reusable Small Relays and a Survey Scanner are provided for independent operations. I added a grabbing unit to the Ferry to facilitate recovery. Two Data Carriers can return science to Kerbin from anywhere.

I am currently trying to squeeze as much utility into the MK3 cargo bays of the Super Guppy III as I can. The Compact Exploration System will be modular so the stack can be reconfigured for different phases of the flight. Currently I have the first two modules ready in LKO for a test flight to the Mun. The passenger Ferry seats 8. It is build around a Nerva to keep the cabins warm. Please excuse the part overlap. The Lander/Miner has 4 Sparks for additional thrust during final approach and liftoff. I had to use a small converter and 4x small drills to fit this into the cargo bay. So refueling will take some time. The Nerva of the Ferry fires through the miner stage below to optimize thrust. I don't care what Sergei says. I still need to build the orbital lab and the interplanetary transfer stage. Plenty of space left in that cargo bay - stay tuned

No, seems to be 0 drag if you use Rockmax X200-32 or smaller. If I just could keep it straight on the runway, I hit the lights at the end (again) and shaved off 4 engines Edit: I think I saw a video (maybe Kerbal University: The Drag Cube) where it said that KSP checks if the tank fits into the fairing by considering the longest axis. So maybe this is why the X200-32 have no drag even if they overlap multiple cargo bays. Edit 2: Bombing run - I missed

The Intellitank design of Hotel26 inspired me to rework the Orbital Fuel Depot. It is now easier on the eyes and circumvents the bug that Rockomax Jumbo-64 tanks cause drag even if they are inside Mk.3 Cargo Bays. "Refresh yourself! For me too, girl, that foaming draught, that fresh, healthy look." Orbital Fuel Depot II 4x Spark Delta-v (vaccum): 5231 m/s TWR: 0.12 in low Kerbin orbit Mass: 70.2 tons Price: 26,044 LF: 6600 OX: 5400 Docking: 2x Clamp-O-Tron, 2x Jr., 2x Sr. docking ports, RCS The reduced drag (and slightly lower payload mass down from 74 tons) allowed the Super Guppy III to place it into a higher orbit. Screenshots are from 500x500 km and I had 259 m/s left Top speed airbreathing was 1462 m/s (surface) at 23 km. Lift/Drag ratio 3.5 at Mach 5.8 and 34 km (pointed prograde relative to surface). Steam Workshop: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3026774079 KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/Meltdown/Orbital-Fuel-Depot-II

If it was not a descendant of the 'Super Guppy' line, I would have named it 'Sea Turtle'. There is something about the way it holds it wings ... And my take on the 'Intellitank' sucks, because as it turns out, a MK3 Cargo Bay is not large enough to shield a Rockomax Jumbo-64 from drag. So I better build this out of 4x Rockmax X200-32 tanks next time. After I discovered the additional drag, I still continued to use this as test payload because I wanted my notes to stay comparable over all the different iterations of the Super Guppy while I tweaked the delta-V.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I continued my crusade against high launch costs. Presenting Super Guppy III, a fugly cargo SSTO that can put 2 orange Rockomax tanks into orbit. 'Super Guppy III' Heavy Cargo SSTO 12x Rapier Delta-v: ~ 420 m/s left after insertion into 75x75 km Kerbin orbit TWR: ~1.40 in low Kerbin orbit Launch Mass: 181 tons + 74 tons payload Price: 172,489 Crew capacity: none Cargo capacity: 3x Mk3 Cargo Bay CRG-50 This is about the 250th iteration on the Super Guppy concept. This time the aerodynamics during reentry and final approach actually work, as opposed to Super Guppy I and Super Guppy II! Mark III is also a little bit cheaper because it does not use any Nervas and has less parts. During one of the test flights I overshot KSC and landed at Island Airbase, which proved that the low speed glide characteristics are excellent (and the brake chutes work). Steam Workshop: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3025581263 KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/Meltdown/Super-Guppy-III-Heavy-Cargo-SSTO

Yes this should work, even without ditching the side tanks and jet engines. The main point is whether you can accelerate enough on the jet engines before you need to fire the rocket engine. In order to do this you should strive for clean aerodynamics. And you need to have the right amount of excess liquid fuel for the atmospheric part of the flight. Some time ago I built three small concepts that use 2x Wheesley and 1x Swivel. They are very low tech (for an SSTO). Maybe they can serve as a starting point to get the right ratio of LF to OX figured out. Docking capability is missing though. (I tried to keep the part count low so you don't need to upgrade the SPH). Minimalist SSTO I 183 science needed; 18 tons; 100 m/s left in LKO; Minimalist SSTO II 198 science needed; 17.5 tons; just enough delta-v to get to orbit; Minimalist SSTO III 243 science needed; 25.6 tons; 650 m/s left in LKO Oh and if you go crazy enough with the drop tank/drop engine idea, you can get all the way to Moho and back. Will be neither small nor cheap though Skyfly X + Moho Excursion Module VII max science; 159 tons; about 9000 m/s left in LKO with 13.5 tons Lander payload

Just think what humankind would have been able to achieve in this alternative timeline - we would have settled Mars decades ago.

"It is so large that all the asas, with their weapons and war-gear, can find room on board it." As an improvement over 'Sleipnir', I built a small SSTO that can get 8 Kerbals and a lot of cargo to the Mun or Minmus. It also features an additional shielded Clamp-O-Tron for easier docking. 'Skidbladner' Short Range Shuttle 2x Rapier Delta-v: ~ 1600 m/s left after insertion into 75x75 km Kerbin orbit TWR: 1.58 in low Kerbin orbit Launch Mass: 33.3 tons Price: 55,475 Crew capacity: 8 Cargo capacity: 2x 650 L + 2x 200 L Science: 3 Experiment Storage Docking: 1x Clamp-O-Tron, 1x Jr. port, RCS Aerodynamics turned out fine, I had no problem landing this back at KSC. This is useful to ferry tourists, cargo and science from and to a 'Behemoth' Orbital Refinery in low Kerbin orbit. From there the tourists can hitch a ride to the surface of the Mun and back on board one of the Ore Freighters. KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/Meltdown/Skidbladner-Short-Range-Shuttle Steam Workshop: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3021720905 Meltdowns Reusable Launchers